memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Vor'cha class
Sorry if I'm asking to many questions and/offending anyone, but couldn't the ship list be displayed in a better way, rather than what appears to be a gigantic block of writing. Perhaps a bulleted list would be more appropriate? --Bok 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC) :Bok, there seems to be a problem with that suggestion and user:8of5 reverted it. I agree with you, and would prefer the bulleted list. :8of5 probably has something to say about, judging by the fact that he took a shot at me in the edit summary. What did I "blank", 8of5? I'm honestly not sure what you mean. -- Captain MKB 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ::As you could see I had already rearranged the list to be partially bulleted. And arranged the ships with registrations into numerical order as has been common practice on ship listing for class on numerous pages all over the site. The current arrangement is as a consequence of a conversation the Doctor and I had a week or two ago about this very issue. I too favour the bulleted list, but the Doc had been making them all horizontal, which has the advantage of not making the page very long and full of blank space. We concluded the best arrangement would be to keep the ships with known registrations in vertical lists while putting those that are just names horizontally. A suitable compromise and neat solution do you not think? I apologise if you'd missed that conversation and I got snappy, but I perceived your edit which complete undid what I already had done as a snub to that effort. --8of5 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :::I do prefer a vertical list when it comes to reference sections for novels where :there could be hundreds of entries and we don't want all those bulleted out. But with starship pages such as this, a bulleted list does seem to be the preferred style. The space taken up could be reduced by separating all the ships into equal vertical columns like on the main page. And even with vertical listing I prefer the semi-colon over the piped line. --Dr. John Smith 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Indeed I was unaware that the Doctor and yourself had any conversations whatsoever. Please feel free to explain these things to me before snapping. As it was, I thought that I was doing my best to accede to Bok's politely phrased suggestion, which I still agree with, so yes, I feel it was a good collaboration (to answer your question 'how is this a good colaboration') -- Captain MKB 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :Well I took your collaboration a snide replacement of what I had done, continuing from the reversion of references you conducted on a page I had edited earlier. I apologise if I misinterpreted a genuinely positive/friendly statement. :Anywho, as there's three of use here shall we try and settle on a system? As you might expect I favour how the page is currently set up as it makes best use of both vertical and horizontal lists to display the available data without huge amounts of empty space. Thoughts? --8of5 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :I like the new set-up here and would suggest it be implemented on the other starship class pages. I also propose that the horizontal system should be used on media pages with a possibility of hundreds of references, and each reference be separated by a semi-colon instead of a piped line. --Dr. John Smith 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ::My comment was to show i was willing to take feedback, as Bok was (a rarity) pointing out his view in talk that I could take a different route, and politely (also a rarity).. i wanted to make clear to him that, even though I didn't take on 100% of his suggestions and changes, that i was open to them. ::The semicolon is standard on MA, which is why some here said we shouldn't use it last time it was discussed -- and why i dropped out of the argument -- i was getting fairly tired of being sniped at of being an MA sympathizer like it was a crime or something. ::My favorite I discovered very recently was on the Klingon templates, the "bullet" character (but it's hard to type from the keyboard :P ) ::Seeing as i ran into the above roadblock on the issue, i find myself genuinely lacking opinion on the matter -- i can see how pipes are more visually attractive (there's space on either side), semi's are more literary in use though -- they suggest a list by their nature. -- Captain MKB 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :::While we are getting things of our chests, I wanted to ask why the status field was removed from the when it clearly was active in 2379. Also, what is the new preferred style with the template, as Connections -> Template -> External link seems to be better than Template -> Links. :::And mike, you can now created the "bullet" character on the templates by using the edit box along the bottom when you're on the edit screen. --Dr. John Smith 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ::::With regards to the MA issue I have no trouble whatsoever. I've spent limited time in there myself, mostly adding links to articles here (something I would encourage others to do when they create articles), and have always found there users/administrators to be very helpful, friendly, and funny (with the odd exception). Only MA's adherence to canon trek bothers me, but even that has started to change with increased coverage on novels and comics. --Dr. John Smith 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Holly bananas, edit conflicts! As I've been trying to say: Hmm, ok, which new setup, the one I did, or the one Mike just did? I agree with horizontal referencing on media pages, and have being using that for a while now. But I strongly disagree with using semi-colons over piped lines, the line is much more distinct, it separates each entry a lot clearer. Semi-colons make it look like an endless line of rambling text. Or as Mike put it they're more visually attractive and less list like. I agree Connections -> Template -> External link is the preferred arrangement. --8of5 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ::The "active" comment is troublesome -- look at all 100+ Franz Joseph Constitution class ships -- all listed as active despite the possibility that none ever were (the ST TM only says they were "authorized" -- never specifies "built" or "active" for any but the original 2 series. I've been trying to take it on a case by case basis, but I think that the year MUST be listed -- after all, all starships are active arent they ? at least until they aren't! ::as to " Connections ", i don't like it. its unnecessary code, it does not work with "br clear=all" templates, for no good cause. The template is part of the article body, there's no need to create an unnecessary new subsection to note that there is a template there unless there is ANY OTHER subsection the template clashes with. without " connections " it is still obvious that the template is part of the article body, so i say nay. -- Captain MKB 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ::::We could always take a vote on the issue with the existing (contributing) admins and members to gain some kind of consensus on the piped-line/semi-colon issue/connections. --Dr. John Smith 22:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) General community consensus voteiness works for me, talk pages between a few editors don’t always noticed afterall... In defence of connections, it provides a place to put the boxes, before they were stuffed under whatever was at the bottom of the page, be that external links or whatever random and completely unrelated section was above. The boxes are only navigational aids they are not really part of what the article is about, that particular subject. The connections section provides a neat place for such templates and external links. Ok, if a page is very short and has no other subsections then connections is over the top, but if it has any of subsections or both a template and external link I think there should be the connections section. --8of5 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Sources So, about half of the list of attack cruisers here is still unwritten articles -- however, none are linked to anywhere but here. Anyone know where I could find more information on the remaining Vor'cha ships? -- Captain MKB 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)